Muslim leaders on emigration to the West, in their own words


Who’s the best source, if we want to investigate this concern, this report, that Muslims who want to subvert The West are using ”immigration” and the excuse of “wartime refugees” to move into Europe and now into America hundreds of thousands (oh, let’s be honest, millions) of their people with no desire to assimilate — no desire to embrace our traditions and become Frenchmen or Swedes or Britons or Americans — but who instead intend to wage a holy war, using terror and subterfuge and even the rape of Western women in hopes of forming island colonies independent of outside, secular, French or Swedish or British or American police or political authority, with the eventual goal of turning these nations into Islamic nations, the “new caliphate,” under the rule not of our own traditions and Constitutions, but under ”Shari’a law”?

Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? Of course not. They’re politicians, each with a vested interest in convincing us that the policy of the other — whether it be open borders or closed borders — is evil and dangerous and unwise and wrong.

Instead, on the question of whether Donald Trump is correct to sound an alarm against an ongoing infiltration of the West by an expanding and murderous Muslim jihad, or as to whether Mrs. Clinton’s insistence that those who express such concerns are channeling a lamentable “racist hate” against long-suffering refugees merely because they dress and speak differently — (that “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” as Barack Hussein Obama famously told the U.N. in 2012) — surely the place to start is to listen to what Muslim clerics, sheikhs, and others of their leaders are saying on this subject, both in the Middle East and here in the West, in their own words.

Fortunately, this is easy. Spend a few minutes, turn up the speakers on your computer, click on a few of the links below:

(Several of the following videos provide subtitle translations into English courtesy of the Middle East Media Research Institute, a non-profit “think tank” based in Washington, D.C., which publishes and distributes free English language translations of Arabic, Persian, and other Middle Eastern media reports and broadcasts. MEMRI was founded by former military intelligence types who were born in Israel, and some critics complain it tends to portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light by selectively translating the views of extremists — as though any news service wastes its valuable time and resources reporting “It’s a nice sunny day and the Legislature has declared this to be National Strawberry Shortcake Week.” Meantime, though, I have not been able to find any sources, even among Arabic-speakers, who say their translations are erroneous, or bad. And given the known tendency of Arab leaders (most famously Yasser Arafat) to utter smooth and peaceful assurances to Western audiences, and then turn around and shout “Jihad! Jihad! Jihad!” to their own Arabic audiences back home, I want to know what these characters are saying to their domestic audiences in Arabic.)

Here’s Sheikh Muhammad Ayed, described by some sources as “the top imam in Jerusalem” (though in truth Islam has no hierarchy equivalent to the Roman Catholic church with its cardinals and bishops) — speaking at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on Sept. 11, 2015 — a notable anniversary: “Soon we will trample the Jews and Christians underfoot. . . . Europe has become old and decrepit.” Europeans aren’t really motivated by any compassion for Muslim “refugees,” the good sheikh declares, “They wish that we were dead, but they have lost their fertility. . . .” So the Muslim immigrants will “breed with them” to conquer the West. . . . (No mention of whether the Western women in question will be asked nicely whether they’d like to participate):


Muslim leader Anjem Choudary of Britain’s Islam4UK — who has praised the Sept. 11 hijackers as well as domestic British-born Muslim terrorists who murdered scores of people in bomb attacks there and who has also called for the execution of Pope Benedict — denies Islam is a religion of peace, calls it “more than just a religion; it is an ideology which you struggle for and you die for. . . .” And note this is in the present tense; he’s not just talking about the way Muslims behaved 12 centuries ago. This English-language report thanks to CBN Christian News:

‘They are not trying to be part of the American way of life . . .’

Sheikh Ali Al-Faqir, former Jordanian minister of Religious Endowment (remember, these are nations without the slightest pretense or concept of “separation of church and state,” where it’s actually against the law to “defame Islam”): “We will conquer Rome, we will rule the world. . . .”

Various Muslim agitators and organizers in the West declare “We can invade their country and take their wives as war booty” . . . “We will not stop until the whole world is governed by Islam . . . Shari’a for Europe in its entirety . . . Most of the residents of France will be Muslims, Allah willing. . . . After a while, Europe will become a single Islamic state. . . . These countries will convert to Islam, this is a promise . . . . We will conquer Italy and then on from there. . . Even America, you ask? Yes, even America.”

And finally (for now) Nonie Darwish, immigrant to the West and daughter of a Shahid (jihadi martyr) . . . who surely should know: “They want the Koran to replace our Constitution. . . . They are not trying to be part of the American way of life, they are not trying to be part of our culture, they are here with an agenda to make Islam the law of the land. . . . Of course not every Muslim is like that, but we have been infiltrated. America needs to wake up because we are strangling ourselves with our Political Correctness. . . .”

Yes, we can sense here the anger and frustration of a people who have been left behind in the backwaters of history. Muslim mathematicians and astronomers made great contributions a millennium ago, but today — except for the stuff they import from the West — their culture stands frozen a thousand years in the past. They treat their women as slaves — heck, they actually practice slavery, female genital mutilation, subjugation of “non-believers,” execution of homosexuals and of anyone who tries to teach Christianity, church-burning, the whole medieval horror show. They have no tradition or understanding of “multicultural tolerance” or “peaceful coexistence” (except as phrases to fool foreign dimwits), they just keep blowing things (and themselves) up out of frustration because they’re still taught from childhood that their highest call is to conquer the world for Islam, but the world seems singularly uncooperative. Heck, they can’t even conquer little Israel!

But this hardly means they’re not a danger, if set loose in lands where “chivalry” remains a strong enough part of our heritage that women have long felt secure walking the streets unmolested, and where we have (so far) avoided routinely stopping pedestrians to make sure they’re not wearing suicide belts.

Why would these people — every one of them — be lying?

Why are The New York Times and The Washington Post and the “big three” television networks doing such a poor job of “going to the source” to report any of this, instead just portraying the issue as a “he says-she says” between the noble, compassionate Hillary Clinton and that bad, hate-filled Donald Trump?

Oh, come on. TV reporters are hired for their looks and their diction. There’s a lot of “show biz” and cumbersome electronic logistics involved in getting them out there “on location” with their hair and makeup done right. I worked for decades as one of the “print reporters” with a notebook in his hand who stand over at the side as those TV munchkins prance in front of the camera with the state capitol or the city hall over their shoulder, filing their breathless 40-second sound bytes. In a spare couple of minutes before the cameras rolled, the pretty, skinny young TV gals in their pancake makeup and absurd high heels would turn to us and ask, “So what’s going on here? What’s the latest?” Dogged background research and tackling subjects at a level that would take more than 45 seconds to explain were “not on the agenda.” (Where do you think I got the character Brittany Watson in “The Miskatonic Manuscript”?)

The sign over the west entrance of the New York Times building at 620 Eighth Ave. April 28, 2016 in New York. / AFP / DON EMMERT        (Photo credit should read DON EMMERT/AFP/Getty Images)

The sign over the west entrance of the New York Times building at 620 Eighth Ave. April 28, 2016 in New York. / DON EMMERT/AFP/Getty Images)

As for the “big dailies” with the faltering circulations, let them offer their own answers. My perhaps cynical view is they’ve cast aside the last fig leaves of objectivity -– they’re part of the Hillary Clinton campaign. Increasingly they report this is a simply a contest to see who the voters dislike more — Trump or Clinton. On slickness, on “sounding competent and compassionate,” they figure an election cast in that light will swing to the oh-so-carefully stage-managed Clinton campaign . . . especially if they keep reporting everything Trump says a “another misstep; another gaffe,” by a guy who should really be playing the Wild Man of Borneo, down at the fairgounds.

(My predicted lede headline on the Nov. 9 New York Times: “Trump Commits Worst Gaffe to Date / Will His Election to the Presidency Prove His Most Serious, Fatal Misstep?”)

These same past-it media are also reporting a ticket of tired Republican ex-governors from New Mexico and Massachusetts who now identify themselves as “Libertarians” — despite the fact Bill Weld is a past and current gun-grabber, and that neither he nor running mate Gary Johnson make any mention of eliminating all our guns laws and re-legalizing all drugs (in fact, they specify they’re calling for a shift to “harm reduction” on marijuana only — the rest of the Drug War is fine by them) — positions which have been part of the LP platform for 40 years — is polling at 11 percent.

‘Republican Lite’

Now, my record on political predictions is not great, since I keep letting the hope that Americans will opt for more liberty and smaller government — less regulation to cripple capitalist job-creation, an end to the draconian and counterproductive “War on Drugs” — get the better of me. But let me tell you, right here: Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are not going to get 11 percent of the vote on Nov. 8. They are not going to get 7 percent of the vote. I would be pleasantly shocked if they got 3 percent of the vote.

In 2012, Gary Johnson received 1,275,821 popular votes, or 1 percent of the vote — about the same percentage as Ed Clark picked up in 1980, thanks in large part to the largesse of millionaire 1980 running mate David Koch. Like it or not, American presidential politics is a big-money game. When the TV money tidal wave crests in October, where is the “open borders” Libertarian Party of today — really a “Republican Lite” ticket that hopes they can reduce military expenditures by 20 percent, maybe, at the most — going to be?

When people get to the polls on Nov. 8 -– we must leave aside for now the ones who sit in their union halls with their shop stewards leaning over their shoulders, telling them how to fill out their “absentee ballots” — I believe the pollsters are wrong (or else involved in “misdirection”); I believe Americans are going to be thinking about a few real issues.

What about the foundering, “no new jobs” economy? (And who on earth would have expected no improvement there over the past eight years, under the guiding hand of a president whose youthful mentor was long-time active Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis — later abetted by “community organizer” and socialist agitator Saul Alinsky — a president who’s never worked in a profit-making business as substantial as an ice-cream stand?)

Yes, Donald Trump is an unknown quantity, never having held elective office. (Previous presidents who had never held an elective office include William Howard Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ulysses S. Grant, and . . . George Washington.) But everyone knows he’s been an active businessman and entrepreneur. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, shares Barack Obama’s ignorance of how anyone ever meets a payroll in the private sector. (She merely dismisses businesses that can’t afford ever-increasing government mandates and extractions as “under-funded.”)

Why is it the Lamestream media will tell us “the economy” played a big part in voters’ decisions . . . only the day after the election?

What about the imminent collapse of the Obamacare “exchanges” and their promise of “affordable health care” — — ? Under a third Clinton presidency, this time run by the Queen of the Welfare State herself, it would be socialized medicine, all the way – tax-funded, Soviet style “Medicaid for everyone” . . . except, of course, for the ruling political elite. (None of them will ever be told “You really need this operation tomorrow, but unfortunately our next opening is in eight months.”) You’re telling me voters aren’t wondering why the press ignores this question?


Will any voters be concerned about the way Mrs. Clinton abandoned our guys in Bengazi and then asked “What difference does it make?” About a few little on-purpose Hillary e-mail security breaches that have led to a few Iranian intelligence assets having their throats slit?

Will any voters have second thoughts about pulling the lever once again for Bill and Hillary, when Hillary admits the couple left office in 2001 “not only broke, but in debt,” yet today the Clintons are on the take for billions -– billions — of dollars from seemingly every corporate interest and overseas dictator with a checkbook? Why was it, once Hillary was ensconced as Secretary of State and thus in a position to give or withhold valuable favors to corporate donors to the “Clinton Foundation,” that Bill Clinton’s fee for “giving a speech” to such corporate donors suddenly skyrocketed to $750,000?

Skip the opening four-minute teaser, if you prefer, and spend less than an hour watching “Clinton Cash” for free at . (You’ll especially admire the way all those corporate Clinton pals got rich from the way Hill and Billary handled “Haitian earthquake relief”) . . .

And then ask yourself what on earth the Clintons may think they have to gain from “open borders” — from millions more unassimilated Muslim immigrants, anxious to bring to America their war of conquest, complete with gang rapes, mass murder, “Muslim areas,” and police “no-go zones,” just as they have to Western Europe.

You’ve now heard it from the Muslims’ own mouths. Pleasant dreams.

3 Comments to “Muslim leaders on emigration to the West, in their own words”

  1. hobitual Says:

    we live in interesting times vin, i think the old boy scout motto really applies here – be prepared
    ive been to two trump rallies and 1 hilliary gathering ,,, people were fired up and excited at the trump rallies ,, people were kinda glum at the hilliary wake ,, i think i know why – its really hard to get excited when you know shes lying to you
    please keep on doing what you do best vin putting words on paper that causes us to do some critical thinking
    thanks again

  2. Henry Says:

    I can’t believe the Libertarian Party screwed the pooch so badly this cycle. But it’s not as if we didn’t all get a preview of the future with the party’s selection of Bob Barr. Now it’s all about name recognition, and screw principle.

  3. Hawkeye Says:

    You are aware that Anjem Choudary is working for the British Intelligence Community, correct?

    This is more of the manufactured ‘clash of civilization’ BS from the usual suspects.

    Just who instigated and allowed all of these male Muslims of draft age to invade Europe, as a prelude to invading the united States(if we are stupid enough to allow it!):